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?
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.
Hello:
The consciousness cognices/discerns the sweetness, it discerns its something different that the bitterness without the need to tag it, to put a name or a classification to that, wich later the perception will do.
First of all, the sutta I linked was talking specifically about how consciousness and namarupa are dependent upon one-another. I didn't link it as any reference to "awareness."
So appearance of the objects in the mind is consciousness so this is conseptualization. This is the nama/mind.
Mental objects arise through contact between the idea and the intellect-consciousness.
But even before the appearance there is awareness. When awareness contacts with the objects it becomes consciousness.
Awareness is not mentioned in the process of contact. Consciousness arises dependent upon namarupa and volitional formations. The 6 sense-media (which include intellect-consciousness) arises dependent upon namarupa. Contact arises dependent upon the 6 sense-media.
There is no mention of "awareness" anywhere is the process. My personal definition of awareness from my previous post was pure speculation on my part.
The consciousness cognices/discerns the sweetness, it discerns its something different that the bitterness without the need to tag it, to put a name or a classification to that, wich later the perception will do.
With metta.
I know what you mean. What I'm saying is that consciousness does not discern "sour." It discerns "taste." Perception "perceives sour" dependent upon the discernment of "taste." Does that make sense?
From Buddhism Connec, awakened heart sangha (you can google) - a weekly email teaching free of charge:
Lama Shenpen:
It doesn't exist outside of this. The description of everything changing as a constant flow needs to be looked at very, very carefully or it becomes just another attempt to label reality rather than really experience it directly.
What do we mean when we say everything changes? At first it might mean that we learn to accept that the weather isn't always nice, that we sometimes get sick, that our friends die, or whatever. We may notice that troubles come and go - nothing stays the same and so on. But what does all that mean? What are we saying really?
What we are saying is that we tend to fixate on things and project onto them a kind of fixed way of being that isn't true. But so what? Well, to start with we realise that by doing this we try to find security in what can offer us no security and we miss opportunties for things to change by projecting onto situations our prejudiced ideas.
But still, that only makes certain situations less painful. It doesn't radically change the way we see the world. It doesn't show us the path to Awakening in the sense of taking us beyond life and death. That is what the path to Awakening is about really - the end of all suffering - the end of birth and death.
That is what the Buddha taught. Nirvana is the Unborn, the Deathless - and it is Reality.
Birth and death and arisng and ceasing are delusion. Change is delusion. If something was to change it would have to exist in the first place. For something to change it has to arise and stay and cease. But what does that? Nothing does that. It is all very very mysterious. We think that one moment leads to the next dont we? We think things last from one moment to the next. If you say 'No - moments disappear as soon as they arise' - how do you know that? What is there that lasts from one moment to the next that knows that? If your awareness of a moment ago has gone, how can it know what is arising at this moment? If a new moment of awareness knows this moment, how does it know anything about the moment that has just gone by? If things don't last for a moment, in what way can they be said to change?
These are not just riddles. This kind of questioning needs to be pursued rigorously - all the time letting the questions point to the true nature of our experience. In this way you might start to glimpse at a reality that lies beyond all the thinking - and that reality is what does not change because it is not of the nature of something that arises and ceases. It is not of the nature of something that you can sieze on as an object of knowledge and analyse. It can be relied on totally and its nature is bliss!
'Life exists only at this very moment, and in this moment it is infinite and eternal. The present moment is infinitely small; before we can measure it, it has gone, and yet it exists forever…. You may believe yourself out of harmony with life and its eternal Now; but you cannot be, for you are life and exist Now.' – from Become What You Are; by Alan Watts.
zenworld, why do you think that quoting from a sutra means you can't be wrong?
Why do you think that quoting Lama Shenpen means you can't be wrong?
That was a rhetorical question. The suttas are either A) the spoken word of the enlightened buddha or the insightful words of the sangha of the exalted one's diciples who have practiced well.
The suttas hold just as much, if not much more, weight as the opinion of your teacher. It is wise to maintain a healthy level of speculation and criticism, but it is also useful to recognize the validity of the canon as a source of wisdom that has endured the ages.
Talisman, I don't Talisman even Buddha said to test his word. Thich Nhat Hanh said the teachings on emptiness were like a snake which you had to handle with a forked stick. The snake can bite. Lama Shenpen says the emptiness teachings are like dynamite.
Most of the sutras are provisional, a few are definitive. The reason is that Buddha used skillful means and targeted his speach to his audience. You can even ask @dhammadhatu I think he would agree and would have some input as to which ones are definitive. I know he respects the sutras and utilizes them greatly.
Thich Nhat Hanh said the teachings on emptiness were like a snake which you had to handle with a forked stick. The snake can bite. Lama Shenpen says the emptiness teachings are like dynamite.
That's true! Even in boddhisatva vows you take vow to not talk about emptiness to those who cannot comprehend it. It will make them fall into nihilism. I remember in one of the mind and life video series scientists were pushing HHDL to explain the emptiness concept but he skillfully manage to avoid the subject. You gotta love HHDL.
The consciousness cognices/discerns the sweetness, it discerns its something different that the bitterness without the need to tag it, to put a name or a classification to that, wich later the perception will do.
With metta.
I know what you mean. What I'm saying is that consciousness does not discern "sour." It discerns "taste." Perception "perceives sour" dependent upon the discernment of "taste." Does that make sense?
Hi:
Yes, i think we are talking about the same thing haha.
There is the kind of awareness that does not lead to liberation "theme-less", and then there is the kind of awareness that is skillful and leads to liberation, as in being aware of the supreme emptiness.
I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that. I am only interested in opening up your wisdom of what is the truth of Awareness and directly point to it. Read stage 6 and my comments. All the points are inside but it is difficult to see. Reality is like an illusion, but not an illusion. It is like a dream, but not a dream. Everything is a magical display. And everything is mind.
What does that mean? The mind is always wrongly understood, from "I AM" to non-dual experience. We cannot understand the truth of this mind therefore we can't see mind. Just like u can't see the essence of the article. We have a pre-conception.
Everything is mind. And Everything is like a magical display. That is why I said there is no mirror, there is only reflection. The key is to know the nature of mind. To see that everything is reflection, transcience. Everything is Mind is what that must be derived from anatta (the truth of no-self) and emptiness (dependent origination). But we do not know what "everything" is and what mind is. Therefore we cannot 'see' and cannot experience. We cannot see the essence of it. So anatta and emptiness are taught.
What is Everything? It is like magical display, like an illusion. But it is not an illusion. Like a dream but not a dream, which many misunderstood. Therefore when we experience sounds, thoughts, see colors, forms, dimension and shapes... all is empty. Like an illusion. Like dreams. Like the 'redness' of a flower. Like the 'selfness'. Like the 'hereness'. Like the 'nowness'. Yet empty, nothing real.
If you can't totally see that pristineness, that non-dual, that luminosity, and see only emptiness, you are mistaken. The 'redness', the 'nowness', the 'hardness', the coldness, all are as luminous, as clear, as vivid, we must fully experience it. Yet they are not real, nothing concrete, no solidity, nothing substantial, nothing graspable, no findable, empty, thus non-dual luminosity and emptiness. We see this union, in all transcience, passing phenomena. In emotions, in feelings, in thoughts, in sounds, in sight, in color, in dimension, in shapes, in taste, in hardness, coldness, in sweetness, in sky, in the sound of chirping bird, all experience are like that, empty yet luminous. Then we realise that it is the same as mind. It is mind. If we don't see these 2 nature of mind thoroughly, we can't see, we distant, we seek, we find. Because of its emptiness nature, the manifold, we cannot know what mind is. Therefore the ground is taught, the view is taught - empty yet non-dual luminosity, so that you can see and experience directly that the transience are mind, yet there is no self nature. Then you experience what is one taste. We do not know what mind is, we cannot experience mind. We do not know. That is why insight is important. However if you do not know what is non-dual luminosity and emptiness, how is a practitioner going to experience mind everywhere and know that whatever arises is mind? Therefore first anatta (non-dual luminosity), then emptiness, then spontaneous arising."
Comments
The consciousness cognices/discerns the sweetness, it discerns its something different that the bitterness without the need to tag it, to put a name or a classification to that, wich later the perception will do.
With metta.
First of all, the sutta I linked was talking specifically about how consciousness and namarupa are dependent upon one-another. I didn't link it as any reference to "awareness." Mental objects arise through contact between the idea and the intellect-consciousness. Awareness is not mentioned in the process of contact. Consciousness arises dependent upon namarupa and volitional formations. The 6 sense-media (which include intellect-consciousness) arises dependent upon namarupa. Contact arises dependent upon the 6 sense-media.
There is no mention of "awareness" anywhere is the process. My personal definition of awareness from my previous post was pure speculation on my part.
both point to the non duality of ultimate reality.
both are probably the same, but can be interpreted as different.
Lama Shenpen:
It doesn't exist outside of this. The description of everything changing as a constant flow needs to be looked at very, very carefully or it becomes just another attempt to label reality rather than really experience it directly.
What do we mean when we say everything changes? At first it might mean that we learn to accept that the weather isn't always nice, that we sometimes get sick, that our friends die, or whatever. We may notice that troubles come and go - nothing stays the same and so on. But what does all that mean? What are we saying really?
What we are saying is that we tend to fixate on things and project onto them a kind of fixed way of being that isn't true. But so what? Well, to start with we realise that by doing this we try to find security in what can offer us no security and we miss opportunties for things to change by projecting onto situations our prejudiced ideas.
But still, that only makes certain situations less painful. It doesn't radically change the way we see the world. It doesn't show us the path to Awakening in the sense of taking us beyond life and death. That is what the path to Awakening is about really - the end of all suffering - the end of birth and death.
That is what the Buddha taught. Nirvana is the Unborn, the Deathless - and it is Reality.
Birth and death and arisng and ceasing are delusion. Change is delusion. If something was to change it would have to exist in the first place. For something to change it has to arise and stay and cease. But what does that? Nothing does that. It is all very very mysterious. We think that one moment leads to the next dont we? We think things last from one moment to the next. If you say 'No - moments disappear as soon as they arise' - how do you know that? What is there that lasts from one moment to the next that knows that? If your awareness of a moment ago has gone, how can it know what is arising at this moment? If a new moment of awareness knows this moment, how does it know anything about the moment that has just gone by? If things don't last for a moment, in what way can they be said to change?
These are not just riddles. This kind of questioning needs to be pursued rigorously - all the time letting the questions point to the true nature of our experience. In this way you might start to glimpse at a reality that lies beyond all the thinking - and that reality is what does not change because it is not of the nature of something that arises and ceases. It is not of the nature of something that you can sieze on as an object of knowledge and analyse. It can be relied on totally and its nature is bliss!
Does this go some way to answering your question?
That was a rhetorical question. The suttas are either A) the spoken word of the enlightened buddha or
The suttas hold just as much, if not much more, weight as the opinion of your teacher. It is wise to maintain a healthy level of speculation and criticism, but it is also useful to recognize the validity of the canon as a source of wisdom that has endured the ages.
Yes, i think we are talking about the same thing haha.
With metta.
"Thusness/PasserBy's comments to me:
I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that. I am only interested in opening up your wisdom of what is the truth of Awareness and directly point to it. Read stage 6 and my comments. All the points are inside but it is difficult to see. Reality is like an illusion, but not an illusion. It is like a dream, but not a dream. Everything is a magical display. And everything is mind.
What does that mean? The mind is always wrongly understood, from "I AM" to non-dual experience. We cannot understand the truth of this mind therefore we can't see mind. Just like u can't see the essence of the article. We have a pre-conception.
Everything is mind. And Everything is like a magical display. That is why I said there is no mirror, there is only reflection. The key is to know the nature of mind. To see that everything is reflection, transcience. Everything is Mind is what that must be derived from anatta (the truth of no-self) and emptiness (dependent origination). But we do not know what "everything" is and what mind is. Therefore we cannot 'see' and cannot experience. We cannot see the essence of it. So anatta and emptiness are taught.
What is Everything? It is like magical display, like an illusion. But it is not an illusion. Like a dream but not a dream, which many misunderstood. Therefore when we experience sounds, thoughts, see colors, forms, dimension and shapes... all is empty. Like an illusion. Like dreams. Like the 'redness' of a flower. Like the 'selfness'. Like the 'hereness'. Like the 'nowness'. Yet empty, nothing real.
If you can't totally see that pristineness, that non-dual, that luminosity, and see only emptiness, you are mistaken. The 'redness', the 'nowness', the 'hardness', the coldness, all are as luminous, as clear, as vivid, we must fully experience it. Yet they are not real, nothing concrete, no solidity, nothing substantial, nothing graspable, no findable, empty, thus non-dual luminosity and emptiness. We see this union, in all transcience, passing phenomena. In emotions, in feelings, in thoughts, in sounds, in sight, in color, in dimension, in shapes, in taste, in hardness, coldness, in sweetness, in sky, in the sound of chirping bird, all experience are like that, empty yet luminous. Then we realise that it is the same as mind. It is mind. If we don't see these 2 nature of mind thoroughly, we can't see, we distant, we seek, we find. Because of its emptiness nature, the manifold, we cannot know what mind is. Therefore the ground is taught, the view is taught - empty yet non-dual luminosity, so that you can see and experience directly that the transience are mind, yet there is no self nature. Then you experience what is one taste. We do not know what mind is, we cannot experience mind. We do not know. That is why insight is important. However if you do not know what is non-dual luminosity and emptiness, how is a practitioner going to experience mind everywhere and know that whatever arises is mind? Therefore first anatta (non-dual luminosity), then emptiness, then spontaneous arising."
from:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html