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.
Question re ONE mind, no mind-
FullCircle
Explorer
Hi everyone,
So this is my question-- I really have total faith that there is no permanent self to be found here among these aggregates that I call 'me'... So if theres nothing thats me or mine-- whos mind is this? Is what I call my mind-is it only my consciousness arising repeatedly?
Is enlightenment/nirvana/full realization-is that when one sees that all there is is ONE mind? But when the zen guys talk about NO mind- is that because there is no individual mind?
(I love Huang Po..hope to clearly know what he means someday;)
THanks all!!
So this is my question-- I really have total faith that there is no permanent self to be found here among these aggregates that I call 'me'... So if theres nothing thats me or mine-- whos mind is this? Is what I call my mind-is it only my consciousness arising repeatedly?
Is enlightenment/nirvana/full realization-is that when one sees that all there is is ONE mind? But when the zen guys talk about NO mind- is that because there is no individual mind?
(I love Huang Po..hope to clearly know what he means someday;)
THanks all!!
0
Comments
Nirvana is just the cessation of craving, of suffering, stopping the process of rebirth. It's still just part of the greater Emptiness or Mind, though it stops clinging to itself.
One Mind and No Mind are just two sides of the coin of duality. It's just "Mind". Self and Not-Self, or Self and No Self, are also just "Mind" (Emptiness). Really there's nothing to pin any kind of label to, because it's empty. That's what's beyond duality.
IMHzenO
One of the more elusive aspects of practise to remember is that Mind, no mind, no self, not self or even emptiness are not really understandings that can be acquired for what would you hold them with?
To practise just for practise sake, is to experience them.
But..
They are really just more teachings that say "this too must be let go of".
Just like a car is a collection of wheels, body, engine, etc, but nothing is really a car in and of itself, it's just a label.
So to ask yourself whose mind it is, is already missing the point. So that's why people say no mind. Indeed there is no individual mind. But also no not-individual mind.
With metta,
Sabre
“He beholds the self purified (visuddhamattânam) of all these evil unskilled states, he heholds the self freed (vimuttamattânam)” (M. i. 283).
“The Nirvana Sutra, which says that “when there is nothing in a jar, the jar is said to be empty—it does not mean that there is no jar.” In the same way, “when there are no discriminating thoughts such as desire or anger in the mind, the mind is said to be empty—it does not mean that there is no mind. ‘No mind’ (wu-hsin) only means that the defilements (fan-nao; klesha) have been eliminated from the mind.”
I have a question re the 4th aggregate too I'll post separately... Thanks!!!
"The Buddha wasn't mistaken. Deluded people don't know who they are. Something so hard to fathom is known by a Buddha and no one else. Only the wise know this mind, this mind called dharma-nature, this mind called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind. Nothing can. It's also called the Unstoppable Tathagata, the Incomprehensible, the Sacred Self, the Immortal, the Great Sage. Its names vary, but not its essence. Buddhas vary too, but none leaves his own mind" (Red Pine, Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma).
Everything else but Mind is empty, like an illusion or a mirage. The universe, itself, is but a configuration/projection of Mind. The father of QM, Max Planck, said:
"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter (Dieser Geist ist der Urgrund aller Materie).”
“He beholds the self purified (visuddhamattânam) of all these evil unskilled states, he heholds the self freed (vimuttamattânam)” (M. i. 283).
This is a new one on me. So your tradition teaches that the self is independent and exists outside of the aggregates, and those are somehow defilements of the self? What tradition is that?
But this mind cannot be established or found. Even to call it mind is an error.
There is no contradiction unless one grasps and fabricates.
I don't know, guess we can't ask him what he meant exactly.
But when in doubt, always go back to the Buddha. The suttas are often quite clear on such matters. So this supports my previous explanation of the mind not being a constant 'thing'.
With metta!
Sabre
The 'father of X' is press spin - he researched energy absorbtion and through this developed the Planck constant - this led to QM advances - there have been many unsung scientists in the field - his imagination and creativity excel him, along with Einstein, to pioneers of physics in the 20th century - this does not necessarily mean that everything he said or thought were either absolutes then or are still absolutes now.
The quote states "we must assume...."
Further, the 'mind is a matrix' does not necessarily mean that the universe is a 'projection' of the mind and nor has a link been shown or even suitably hypothesised between 'force' and 'conscious & intelligent mind'... I assume that by 'force' he is either referring to his constant or to Lambda.
The quote better addresses the quandary 'why are things as they are?' (as in the background there are conflicting logics etc) - the present answer appears to be 'because we are here to observe them as such'...
This does not mean that our observation projects this reality into existence in any other way than subjectively to a human and from a human point of view - this however is stating the obvious! If humans look at the universe in a human way then reality will be presented in a human way (as we are only able to observe what we are able to observe) - the jump to suggest that the only possible reality is a human one is correct from our observational view point as we only accept connections in the context of the human understanding - in this sense 'reality' itself (as observed by us) only exists in the human mind.... so yes... you're now led to consider that without mind there is no matrix for matter... BUT only correct (as far as I can see and understand from the proposition) for Human-observed-matter or rather matter observed from the human point of view!!
A fuller version of the quote is:
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
I would suggest considering the entire published speech in order to really frame the quote in its context plus remember his religious conviction may lead his opinions (if not his mathematics).
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed. Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery. Those who see it thus see rightly. When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed" (S. iii. 189).
Switching gears, you commented earlier that you have total faith that there is no permanent self. Upon what is your faith based? It can't be based on the bad guys—Mara the killer's boys. When it comes to these evil aggregates, here is what the Buddha says:
"But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...taking count of the true men...well trained in the dhamma of the true men, regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is see, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ (M. i. 136).
The self is transcendent, exceeding the limits of the five aggregates. In the Buddha's own example, logically, he realized the self which is why he knows the self is not anyone of the five aggregates. If there is no self (natthatta) how can one possibly say of each aggregate, ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’? It boggles common sense to first believe there is no self but then claim to know that one's self is not aggregated. Incidentally, the Buddha also said the self is the refuge, attasaranâ (D. ii. 100). I take it that this self-as-refuge exceeds the limitations of the aggregates and conditionality.
aggregates, is the buddha-nature. Im not trying to get off topic,
I was taught, based on these same Pali
readings that the self-refuge is the Buddha-self. Is'nt that why we each
can become a Buddha?, bec that's whats there...beyond the aggregates.
Who is the good guy?
May I continue to learn and practice what is given to me.
“The learned saintly disciple’s mind for a long time inclines to seclusion (Skt. dirgha-ratram viveka-nimnam cittam), leans to seclusion, bends to seclusion, orients to dispassion and as to the peace and release of blowing-out, his mind slopes toward blowing-out (Skt. nirvana-prâg bhâram), it is cooled to and finished with all thing-events on which the cankers (âsava) are to stand (vyantibhutam sabbaso asava-tthaniyehi dhammehi)” (SA, 1173, 314b24-26, A. iv. 224).
Or this?
In the first jhâna he dwells. Whatever form there is, including feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, or consciousness, these he sees to be impermanent phenomena, as ill, as a disease, a boil, a viper’s sting, a pain, an affliction, as barbaric, as alien, as empty (suññato), as not the self (anattato). Thus he turns his mind (citta) away from these; he brings his mind (cittaṃ upasaṃharati) towards the deathless (amata) element (dhātu)" (AN IX, IV, 36).
Well, that's the conceptual mind I talked about earlier. The label, which is not substantial, just a useful teaching tool. We shouldn't try to search anything special behind it just because it has a fancy name called 'mind'. It's like the car simile I gave, the word car is nothing substantial. But perhaps a better analogy is a persons name. A person is not his or her name, it's just a useful label to use. While they grow up they change. They are never the same person, really. Still we give them the same name, even after they died. Or something we call "the earth" is never the same. Well, I could provide 100 examples.
I could also ask who is the "disciple" that the quotes you provide speak of, or what is the "feeling/perception/consciousness" or what have you? But those questions wouldn't do any good, because all those things are not substantial. They are concepts, in reality always changing and never the same. The word 'mind' is no exception to this, as it "by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another."
Once we use language, we have to conceptualize things. Language will never really hit the truth, so we will have to use words such as 'the mind'.
With metta,
Sabre
We all know that words act as pointers and are nothing in themselves. The word "sabre" for example is just a sound. Still, it is useful in helping me to see the actual sword that my fencing instructor wants me to take off the sword rack next to the epees on the left.
Bearing this in mine, when I say Buddha-mind, for example, or One Mind, this vocal sound points to something very real and profound that only the wise have attained.
If you have not attained bodhicitta (the mind that is bodhi), then you cannot possiblly know what your master knows. You could be confusing it with conceptual mind which is the defiled mind. In this case, he would beat you unmercifully after which you would bow to him and thank him for his kindness.
The Theravadan theory can probably best be summed up that it is the clinging to or identifying with the skandhas that leads to suffering. If you confuse who you are with your form, or your beliefs, or thoughts, or emotions, etc, then you suffer. The skandhas are not considered to be evil, generally, but identifying with one or another of them certainly puts one into the realm of suffering, or Mara as is sometimes referred.
The Mahayana theory goes further and says the skandhas are empty, so identifying with them is being caught in illusion.
It is a debate that has been going on for a thousand years.
Also, I can take it, but perhaps refrain from the subtle below the belt stuff in case you hurt somebody. Also, it's no argument really, to infer that somebody just doesn't understand what they are talking about.
Metta!
Sabre
Or perhaps they don't put as much weight on this one discourse. There have certainly been monks who saw the self as a mind separate from the skandhas or as a supermundane thing alongside monks who saw the self as composed of the skandhas and ultimately empty. There are echos of this in the Tibetan teaching of the "subtle consciousness" and such. It' s just not as compelling an argument for some folks. All you're doing is claiming people have souls or atman in some form, only you call it something else. Certainly Buddhism struggled to find its own response to that.
And I still haven't seen a sutta where the Buddha clearly states that there is a true self beyond the aggregates.
And I still haven't seen a sutta where the Buddha clearly states that there is a true self beyond the aggregates.
Even if there were, it would have to be measured against the times where the suttas either explicitly or inexplicitly say such a thing doesn't exist.
That doesn't determine what is true or not, of course. Buddhism isn't blind faith. But it'll give us a clearer idea of what the Buddha himself taught.
Just to say there is no self (natthatta) because one can't perceive it is materialism which the Buddha rejected. Where, in what Sutta does the Buddha side with materialists? He never does. So we have to be careful that we do not take up a materialist's belief.
If we say they don't then this vivid arising is denied.
This movement is completely coreless, thus absolutely nothing is arising and falling.
The Buddha is this movement. He is not the skandhas, yet also not apart from the skandhas.
No mind is the six streams of consciousness arising and falling due to conditions. The sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought, vision.
Vivid and appearing unceassingly. Yet completely devoid of essence. Can we call this self, me, or my? Even to call it a mind, isn't true as mind is a designation onto suchness. Suchness has no name. To call this a source is an error. There is no background. There is no essence apart from these arising.
If you believe there is be an essence, then one is just grasping to the skandhas. If pure consciousness or presence is felt. It is merely another fabrication, perception, sensation. Another arising of consciousness.
But making that consciousness pure or special in opposition to the skandhas is an error. Everything equally is the pure luminous arising of presence/awareness, but it is completely ungraspable and coreless.
Grammatically, that is the way it is to be translated. Anattâ is a compound (a kammadhyaraya compound but also operates somewhat like a bahubbuhi compound). The noun type thus would be "Cloud is a non-smoker." Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, uses "nonself" as in "consciousness is nonself" (S.iii.21). However, the kammadhyaraya compound is somewhat adjectival in the example of x is anattâ meaning that x is not the self (attâ is nominative singular).
Using Bhikkhu Bodhi's trans., when we read:
"What is suffering is nonself [anattâ]. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' (brackets are mine)
The model x is anattâ is being used. This passage is in no way suggesting there is no self. In straightforward English it is saying that suffering is not my self (na meso attâ). This further suggests that to see the self (attâ) in what is not the self (anattâ) is a great spiritual error.
As far as the five khandhas go they are anattâ. Again, this does not mean there is no self. Given that each khandha is equivalent to Mara, rightly, we should not regard any khandha as our self. They are not our self.
The vast majority of the people on this earth belief in a form of self in the aggregates. Why? Because they don't practice the path, specifically don't practice meditation, or have not practiced it long enough to see deeply what is or is not there. It's not because they haven't heard about how "anatta" should be translated.
Of course, it's not wrong to argue about translations, and I think the suttas are the best source of material there is. But if we rely on the translations of others too much, we forget that we can't know what's true if we haven't seen for ourselves. Also, scholar translators of the suttas themselves don't always agree, so can't be trusted blindly. In my view some major translators teach things that are not in line with what the truth as the Buddha taught it.
And so the Buddha said in the Kalama sutta, do not rely on scripture or 'so and so' is my teacher.
Just as a general remark. Not taking any position on the discussion here. Just want to say it's very easy to think we are right and others are wrong. But how deep do we really understand? Or is our opinion based on what we read? Something to consider, I think. A good scientist would reproduce the experiments.
The definition:
Mara is the Buddhist devil or principle of destruction. Sometimes the term Mara is also applied to the whole of worldly existence, of the realm of rebirth, as opposed to Nibbana (cp. R. Davids, Pali-English Dic.).
There are five Maras: 1) aggregate Mara; 2) klesha/vices Mara; 3) death Mara; 4) abhisankhara/karma Mara; 5) devaputra/son of god Mara.
Since the khandhas belong to Mara and they (the khandha) are anattâ, Mara, too, by implication, is anattâ, that is, not our self. By affirming the Buddha taught Anattâ, inadvertently, one is proclaiming a doctrine of Mara!
Nowhere does the Buddha teach there are only the five aggregates and no self (natthatta). Rather the Buddha teaches that the five aggregates are not my self (na meso attâ). He also teaches that self is the refuge (attasaranam). He doesn't teach anattâ or the Mara aggregates are the refuge.
that natural nirvana leads towards nirvana with remainder.
as long as you don't make such consciousness into a thing again, then there is no issue. reification of consciousness without feature is in fact atman. releasing consciousness is liberation.
from there, which isn't even a there...all designations are pointless. free from the objectification, yet the clarity of buddhahood continually manifests.
such a mind isn't even mind. don't even bother making it into another thing. everything deconstructs by itself.
you have a very dualistic vision of buddhism. making liberation apart from the aggregates. it is in fact the very essence and nature of the aggregates that bring liberation. recognition of the coreless of suchness is what brings release.
not reification of suchness as a thing, be is non existent or existent.
“Realize that, though Real Mind is expressed in these perceptions (our normal perceptions), it neither forms part of them nor is separate from them.”
-Huang Po
Real mind, Pure mind, No mind are all the same. Union of luminosity and emptiness.
One mind is an authentic experience by serious meditators.
Anyone who meditates long enough will recognize the the watcher merging into everything. Its a nice place to park your car and in fact in many spiritual traditions thats where they do. This is the Atman meeting Brahman. The felt sense of being, existence, consciousness, presence as everything. It can cultivate love and also make people appear radiant. It definitely has a sense of transcendence and a purity. Also people really believe it to be full awakening, nirvana, etc.
No matter how much peace one gets from it, it is still a construction. A perception of a thing. Except now it is in the realm of non conceptual thought. Holding onto this large oneness as a thing while denying view.
Buddhism asserts that we are all distinct, unique, yet interdependent. This is a very subtle view and a radically different conclusion that the hindu oneness.
Releasing this oneness into the natural flow of suchness is rigpa. Rigpa is union of luminousity and emptiness. Rigpa is natural nirvana or buddha nature.
It is unborn, unestablished, yet completely can be known.
When the karmic fuel is exhausted then nirvana with remainder i recognized.
Its like I am beating a goats head over and over and over again. But I've made the whole Atman mistake for too long and I too also did not have prajna wisdom enough to see how subtle the constructions of mind are.
For those who desire to be released, may you not rest until everything is seen as complete utter release.
One of the truly great Mahayana works (a shastra) is the The Awakening of Faith (hereafter AWF), the translation done by Yoshito S. Hakeda. It is where we learn about Mahayana, especially the One Mind (ekacitta).
Unfortunately, the AWF is put on extinction by Western Buddhists who seem much closer to the materialism the Buddha encountered and rejected (Vedanta had not yet arisen which drew its inspiration from Mahayana).
By taking this unfortunate path they will never learn about Mind and how to realize it which, incidentally, is not easy (most take the fifth aggregate to be mind which is a huge mistake). In fact, all of Buddhism (Mahayana) rests upon Mind (e.g., Buddha Mind, Bodhi Mind, unborn Mind, pure Mind, One Mind, Mind-only, clear light Mind and so on). If one has not realized Mind, one cannot claim to be an authentic Bodhisattva. There is no path for them. The Bhumis cannot be realized. One is still a prithagjana, a worldling, lost in samsara who will probably never escape from it.
the watcher is dualistic mindfulness. your simple mindfulness that creates subject (awareness) looking at (object).
when the watcher merges with the object you have substantial non dualism or oneness. this is illuminating everything as clarity or presence/awareness.
those are primarily the conclusion of hindu practices and many buddhists also traverse these stages.
this is where the transition from one mind to no mind is key.
what is not emphasized is emptiness (self/phenomena) and dependent origination.
so one mind = 1+1=1 (substantial non duality).
no mind = six streams of distinct arisings of consciousness. smell, sound, taste, sensation, thought, color (shape, form).
all there is, is the arising and passing of suchness. suchness being the six streams of consciousness. they arise due to conditions and fall away due to extinguishing of conditions. suchness is utterly empty, thus coreless, void, ungraspable.
Heres how we can break down into no mind:
|thought| |thought| |thought| |thought| |thought|.
|smell| |smell| |smell| |smell| |smell|.
|sensation| |sensation| |sensation| |sensation| |sensation|.
|sight| |sight| |sight| |sight| |sight|.
|sound| |sound| |sound| |sound| |sound|.
|taste| |taste| |taste| |taste| |taste|.
Disjointed on two levels:
First each six streams of experience/consciousness is disjointed. Only through thoughts do we create a link between each arising experience. Thoughts do not touch the realm of sounds and sounds do not touch the realm of tastes.
Second each instant of experience isn't linked with the next experience in the same realm of consciousness. For instance it is always one thought arising then the next. With no true link between the two other than the assumed inference. Thought appears to reference another thought but that previous thought is already gone. Even with the other streams of consciousness we find that it is only one instant then the next with no chain of connection findable.
In our everyday experience we see an object with our eyes and then we touch that object. What we must realize is that the touch is just one arising instant of sensation chained upon another arising of sensation chained upon the visual form of the object chained upon the conceptual overlay of name and wholeness on the basis of parts.
The object is just one sensation then gone. One instant of color that is projected as shape on the basis of a projected background color. And we overlap the two and name it. Thus there isn't actually an independently existent "thing" there but in actuality dependently arisen suchness.
With clinging (attachment or aversion) we assume the "essence" of an appearance of consciousness. We name and then the whole experience is built. With less clinging the essence dissolves and what seemed to be so solid vanishes into thin air.
So first we see that experience is disjointed. Then we see that always its just one thought, one smell, one sensation, etc.
Then we must even penetrate this one "appearance of consciousness". Because one is also a designation. We are still operating in perception.
With body and mind we look for the core of all these arisings. With sincerity and honesty we find an absence of what we assumed. Yet everything appears unceasingly. Everything is a magicians trick or like a rainbow. Vivid and apparent yet coreless and ungraspable. What joy, what freedom!!!
The buddha mind is the aggregates and absolutely untouched by the aggregates.
We cannot find anything substantial in the aggregates, thus we must conclude that everything is a construction, perception, assumption. Not finding anything is release.
You make a distinction between the mirror and its appearances. In actuality there is no mirror without appearances and vice versa. Appearances are all there are.
Everything is your clarity, appearance-emptiness. Your karmic vision of your mandala. Its utterly empty, unborn, unestablished. Yet it keeps rolling on.
It isn't grasping at Mind which brings release. It is insight that the mind itself is release, which brings release.
If you only illuminate the clarity of mind as a thing, then you fail to see the various arising of mind as the same clarity. Thus there is a false duality asserted between mind and everything else.
also your whole western buddhist thing is a self fulfilling prophecy. You see what you want to see. Reality is all mind, all a perception.
None of us are materialist. Yet you set us up as materialist.
Do you not see your eternalistic point of view?
The true natural state is beyond any designation.
May you find peace.
Sorry about the wordiness, the vocab just works for me. Here's a good article:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/07/turiya-vs-dzogchen.html
A lot of people mistaken buddha nature for "the watcher" or "oneness".
To those people, I urge you to keep your practice going and to see an authentic teacher who knows what the hell they are teaching.
Buddha nature is the dynamic activity of this interdependent reality. It is the full conclusion of this very moments arising and then dropping completely away, traceless, traceless, traceless. It isn't a state, thing, or something to grasp onto. One doesn't cultivate it, nor is it established as an existent or non existent entity. Any movement is buddha nature, and as such because it is not a thing, nothing is happening.
Cheers.