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.
How are emptiness & non-discriminative awareness different?
DhammaDhatu
Veteran
Greetings Advanced Idealists
The Cula-suññata Sutta (Lesser Discourse on Emptiness) lists the following states of mind as conditioned (fabricated), mentally fashioned, impermanent & subject to cessation and ignorance:
* the dimension of the infinitude of space
* the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness
* the dimension of nothingness
* dimension of neither perception nor non-perception
* theme-less concentration of awareness
Then the Cula-suññata Sutta describes the superior & highest state of emptiness as follows:
* empty of the effluent of sensuality
* empty of the effluent of becoming
* empty of the effluent of ignorance
So how does the supreme emptiness differ from (the different kinds of) non-discriminative awareness?
The Cula-suññata Sutta (Lesser Discourse on Emptiness) lists the following states of mind as conditioned (fabricated), mentally fashioned, impermanent & subject to cessation and ignorance:
* the dimension of the infinitude of space
* the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness
* the dimension of nothingness
* dimension of neither perception nor non-perception
* theme-less concentration of awareness
Then the Cula-suññata Sutta describes the superior & highest state of emptiness as follows:
* empty of the effluent of sensuality
* empty of the effluent of becoming
* empty of the effluent of ignorance
So how does the supreme emptiness differ from (the different kinds of) non-discriminative awareness?
Theme-Less Concentration
The monk — not attending to the perception of the dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — attends to the singleness based on the theme-less concentration of awareness.
His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles & indulges in its theme-less concentration of awareness.
He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of the dimension of nothingness are not present. Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of nothingness. This mode of perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There is only this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.
Release
He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html
0
Comments
all states arise and fall within this space. this space itself is always there whether there is a negative state or positive state.
i like the term non-symbolic consciousness. but i don't think this answers your question.
If one wants to cease all fabricating, then it is a matter of resting with what really is. There isn't a need to generate a theme to the concentration, because that theme is just another fabrication. Instead we turn upon reality and concentrate on what is arising.
* the dimension of the infinitude of space:
* the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness
* the dimension of nothingness
* dimension of neither perception nor non-perception
* theme-less concentration of awareness
Some people go thru kundalini type of awakening and become one with space and time and feel the unity of all consciousness. But this type of awakening is still limited and not the final liberation. Because things like space and time and consciousness are still conceptual. During awakening, there is only an expansion of one's awareness to this infinite but still not escaped the inherintely existing phenomena.
The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception could be this stillness lifeless experience of now, which is suchness. What remains is the pure awareness. I don't know how one can go beyond that no idea. But I guess even in that suchness one still has ground to stay. One step further is groundless.suchness. I don't know.
Because the sense media remain, their corresponding forms of consciousness remain as well. Since consciousness is the function to discern, it would seem that at least a form of "discriminating" abides as long as the sense media remains, at least in reference to forms, tastes, smells, sounds, tactile sensations, and ideas.
However, because the contemplative has, through the process of attaining this mode of perception of themeless concentration of awareness, abandoned and cut off the root of the hinderances as well as released the mind from the effluents of sensuality, becoming, and ignorance, there is no suffering through the abiding of the sense media, only the continued perception of the themeless concentration of awareness until parinirvana.
i believe out of clear seeing of what is one can start to see the nature of interdependence. but this is merely seeing how things are.
so experientially one can realize the spaciousness of mind. not in the form of jhana, but as mind resting on itself. so consciousness resting on consciousness.
but i suppose this doesn't answer the question. is there a difference between just seeing what is and realizing the nature of interdependence?
or is the realization of emptiness an intellectual realization after one awakens into non-symbolic consciousness.
Not any offense to him, of course. I think we're just working on completely different levels of understanding.
Neither has Taiyaki most likely or myself, but I know you haven't been exposed to everything in buddhism. You mostly study zen and theravada, correct?
Buddhas word may be provisional here.
but then again this dives deep into the split between buddhism and advaita vedanta.
when it comes to that topic i just throw up my hands.
The way i see it that sutta its just following the formula used in the other "jhanas" to describe the cessation of perception and feeling.
Dont know if the mind can "take pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles & indulges in its theme-less concentration of awareness.", if everything its shutted off.
But who knows right?.
With metta.
I've read a little bit of the nirvana sutra, and many other mahayana sutras as well. I have not read the Shrimala sutra. I do primarily study zen and theravada (or at least the pali literature and commentaries.) I'm trying to get back into the prajnaparimata literature and I'm planning on reading the lankavatara again soon, as well as starting the avatamsaka sutra.
I don't remember reading anything in any of the mahayana sutras about "non-discriminating awareness."
thus one clears away the dust to see the mirror, but even this mirror is given away.
what is left?
Buddha-nature is actually called Tathagatagharba. It is the potential for all sentient beings to attain buddhahood. It is not any form of awareness at all. It is not a "thing" at all. Have you had a chance to study the tathagatagharba literature at all? It's very profound.
that potential is the non discriminative awareness. the actual potential in every single sentient being. in zen we use koans or we just sit. in sitting we embody buddha nature. in walking we embody buddha nature. in everything we do there is buddha nature. this buddha nature is just this. just this is what is. what is, is clear seeing. clear seeing is non discriminative awareness.
thus in just seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, and thinking without attachment or clinging one embodies buddha nature.
i don't read much. i just meditate and go about my day.
i'm probably wrong. life goes on.
Buddha nature is the same nature as everything. Clear open sensitive.
are you saying it exists relationally to the object being seen?
a perceiver is dependent on something being perceived. without a perceiver there is no object and without an object there is no perceiver.
At least, that's what I think. I could be wrong of course.
There is a distinction between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness depends on sense faculties etc but awareness doesn't require an object and subject. Its non-dual in nature. Buddha said "I am awake". IMO he was referring to this fundemental state that is not conditioned. Pure awareness, my understanding, is the fundamental quality of existence.
Am I wrong?
sorry i use the words interchangeably.
advaita vedanta and zen asserts this non dual awareness as the unconditioned Self. never born, never dies, never becomes.
buddhism asserts that emptiness or interdependency is the highest truth. even this Self is conditioned by other things as it cannot exist independently.
and there is a lot of cross over with the various traditions. are we all just trying to put into words that which cannot be put into words?
is it the same truth just understood differently? different poetic expressions of the same thing. one asserting a oneness, while the other asserts dependent origination.
but i'd like to know what the difference between non dual awareness and consciousness is.
consciousness is the sense of being or "I-AM". consciousness is conditioned.
awareness is non dual because it is beyond "I AM". so "non-discriminative awareness" wouldn't be dependent on "subject/object".
makes sense.
@taiyaki
I think the word "awareness" is the way that we describe the processes of Nama combined with consciousness as a whole. Nama (of namarupa) is comprised of feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. Combine that with consciousness (the function to discern) and you have what can be described as the multi-faceted process of awareness itself.
As you can see, awareness is dependent upon these other processes in order to exist, and these other processes are dependent upon one-another.
(SN 12.67 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html)
In this way is awareness depedently arisen.
Of course my definition of awareness could be terribly scewed. I'm not sure what other qualities awareness displays except for those defined by the parameters of both consciousness and namarupa.
haha be carefull with that
-Consciousness is not the sense of being or "i am". That its called Craving (I am that, the cause of suffering).
-Consciousness cognizes: what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, etc.
-Being aware: is being alert and attentive.
-Awareness/Full awareness: It is called in the suttas "knowledge and vision". It means seeing directly and understanding how the impersonal process of arising things work, and it includes mindfulness as a function..you could call it "having an insight haha".
With metta.
i read this article to clear up my idea of awareness & consciousness.
this is obviously not a buddhist teaching but advaita vedanta.
i dabble in both areas and try to find a happy medium. intellectually its really hard to bring them together.
experientially it makes sense to me.
i see both views as valid. the buddhist one being more intellectually sophisticated but yet its hard to discount what the advaitas say too.
ima sit on this one.
Perception perceives: what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, etc.
Consciousness discerns: it discerns this form as not that form, and this sound as not that sound, and this taste as not that taste, and this smell as not that smell, and this tastile sensation as not that tactile sensation, and this idea as not that idea
That's how I've come to understand things.
So appearance of the objects in the mind is consciousness so this is conseptualization. This is the nama/mind.
But even before the appearance there is awareness. When awareness contacts with the objects it becomes consciousness. So this awareness before conceptualization is the ground state. It is empty and not knowing. Its nature is illumination.
Now turning back to original post, is there a difference between the emptiness and the non-discriminative awareness?