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
Another way to understand unconditioned is that... nirvana is unconditioned in the sense that it is without the conditioning of afflictions and suffering.
It certainly does not mean that there is an inherently existing self called nirvana.
"... for example, there is an elixir-producing [rasa-dhatu] tree in the Himalayas called 'bees' nectar'. Even though it stands entangled with the dense thickets of the forest, it is apparent by its fragrance. Once, a chakravartin [supreme, righteous emperor of the world] inserted pipes [into the tree] from each side to get it, and then sour juice flowed out of the mouths of some of those pipes from that elixir tree; from some there flowed salty juice; from some there flowed sweet juice; from some there flowed pungent juice; from some there flowed bitter juice; and from some there flowed astringent juice. That elixir wafted to the sky in the forest. From the single taste of that elixir, many different tastes emerged, and each one of those tastes did not become mixed together. Moreover, like the disc of the moon, that elixir was ubiquitous. Even though it was present thus, other people went into that forest of dense thickets, but, though they dug with hoes, people with few blessings were unable to get any of it, while, by virtue of his merit, the chakravartin was able to do so.
"In the same way ... the Tathagatagarbha is like the elixir: it remains concealed by the various kleshas. Even though it has just a single taste - as the cause of becoming a Buddha - it is transformed into many different tastes by the maturation of the karmic actions of people, who then arise as men, women, or hermaphrodites. The Tathagata-dhatu is the intrinsic nature [svabhava/prakriti] of beings. Therefore, it cannot be killed by having its life severed. If it could be killed, then the life-force [jivaka] could be annihilated; but it is not possible for the life-force to be annihilated. In this instance, the life-force refers to the Tathagatagarbha. That Dhatu [Element, Principle] cannot be destroyed, killed or annihilated; but also it cannot be seen very clearly as long as Buddhahood has not been attained."
I never said awareness was a solid graspable entity. Where did you get that?
You think awareness is formless and ungraspable like space.
But you still see it as an entity: in the sense that it is real, having inherent, independent, permanent existence... in contrast to impermanent phenomena.
I myself have gone through such a phase of experience/realization/view.
The Tathagatagabhra teachings are skillful means to lead to the insight of emptiness. It does not mean there is a true self. Lankavatara Sutra states his very clearly.
-------
Loppon Namdrol:
Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:
That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.
Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:
"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.
Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."
So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:
"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.
Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.
Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,
Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"
Thus, the Lanka says:
All yaanas are included in five dharmas, three natures, eight consciousnesses, and two selflessnesses
It does not add anything about a true self and so on.
If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:
Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.
Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.
Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.
And:
Although tathaagatagarbha possesses seven consciousnesses; always engaged with dualistic apprehensions [it] will evolve with thorough understanding.
If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:
"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha. `Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.
And:
`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.
Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.
Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:
"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.
So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states
"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.
Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.
When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.
"Is Awareness independent? Is it permanent? Is it Self?"
I said that there was no reference point
Yes, that infinite, borderless, centerless awareness, without reference to a conceptual center/self... is taken to be an ultimate Self, taken to be unchanging, inherent... that is what I mean.
But this is all relevant to the OPs question if he/she can understand our conversation which is not a comment on intelligence just we have a background and can relate to what eachother is saying though it took awhile.
change refers to a reference point. Without a reference point there is nothing to measure based on. But I agree there is still a movement of the heart, your luminosity.
'Impermanence' is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. 'Impermanence' is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the "what is" of impermanence. It is just so.
Zen Master Dogen and Zen Master Hui-Neng said: "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature."
We think that change, impermanence, implies 'something changing' or 'something moving' which requires reference point. This is not so. Change is... just this sound, manifest, self-liberates. This thought, manifests, self-liberates. But this thought does not change into another thought... Thought A and Thought B are distinct, disjoint, unsupported, self-liberating. This is what change means in direct insight and experience.
There is nothing measuring movement, yet there is nothing staying. Everything self-liberates... not even a trace of 'awareness' or anything unchanging remains... just this thought, gone.. this sound, gone.. this thought... and this is the true meaning of impermanence.
I agree it's better to take this into PM. I gtg for now... going to eat.
think about a movie frame reel and how it has static frames, which move at high speeds to create time and motion. now translate this into our reality. we have an infinite amount of static realities and motion, change, space, and time is just flipping through these static realties.
one could say the more aware we are of this moment, the slower time goes.
Awareness and minfulness is immeasurable and can be enhanced. Consciousness is a clinging aggregate, can be enhanced, but is still reduced to suffering.
Keep in mind, guys, that the seer, the center of experience, is thought and like the eye that sees; it cannot see itself. You're looking for something as 'other', when in fact, it's you.
What is difference between consciousness and awareness
I think the term consciousness is more in reference to being a sentient being and awareness has to do with manifesting your potential as a sentient being.
Comments
It certainly does not mean that there is an inherently existing self called nirvana.
"In the same way ... the Tathagatagarbha is like the elixir: it remains concealed by the various kleshas. Even though it has just a single taste - as the cause of becoming a Buddha - it is transformed into many different tastes by the maturation of the karmic actions of people, who then arise as men, women, or hermaphrodites. The Tathagata-dhatu is the intrinsic nature [svabhava/prakriti] of beings. Therefore, it cannot be killed by having its life severed. If it could be killed, then the life-force [jivaka] could be annihilated; but it is not possible for the life-force to be annihilated. In this instance, the life-force refers to the Tathagatagarbha. That Dhatu [Element, Principle] cannot be destroyed, killed or annihilated; but also it cannot be seen very clearly as long as Buddhahood has not been attained."
But you still see it as an entity: in the sense that it is real, having inherent, independent, permanent existence... in contrast to impermanent phenomena.
I myself have gone through such a phase of experience/realization/view.
-------
Loppon Namdrol:
Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:
That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.
Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:
"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.
Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."
So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:
"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.
Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.
Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,
Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"
Thus, the Lanka says:
All yaanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses
It does not add anything about a true self and so on.
If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:
Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.
Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.
Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.
And:
Although tathaagatagarbha
possesses seven consciousnesses;
always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.
If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:
"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.
`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.
And:
`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.
Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.
Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:
"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.
So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states
"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.
Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.
When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.
It just must not be seen as a metaphysical essence.
Luminosity and emptiness are inseparable.
All six consciousness, as stated by Nagarjuna, are empty and luminous.
If you think it is, then that is precisely the Self-view that Buddha rejected, and what the Hindus and Advaitins are teaching.
I said that there was no reference point
But I also cannot find an inherent unchanging awareness.
Nor I...
Lets take this to PMs Federica frowns on AB conversations
Zen Master Dogen and Zen Master Hui-Neng said: "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature."
We think that change, impermanence, implies 'something changing' or 'something moving' which requires reference point. This is not so. Change is... just this sound, manifest, self-liberates. This thought, manifests, self-liberates. But this thought does not change into another thought... Thought A and Thought B are distinct, disjoint, unsupported, self-liberating. This is what change means in direct insight and experience.
There is nothing measuring movement, yet there is nothing staying. Everything self-liberates... not even a trace of 'awareness' or anything unchanging remains... just this thought, gone.. this sound, gone.. this thought... and this is the true meaning of impermanence.
I agree it's better to take this into PM. I gtg for now... going to eat.
now translate this into our reality. we have an infinite amount of static realities and motion, change, space, and time is just flipping through these static realties.
one could say the more aware we are of this moment, the slower time goes.
just a thought.
You're looking for something as 'other', when in fact, it's you.
_/\_
subject/object duality
Through awareness I see that the perceiver is the perceived.
from=emptiness