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.
The Quantum and the Lotus
Jeffrey
Veteran
From Lama and scientist, Matthieu Ricard:
MATTHIEU: Buddhism agrees with most of the opinions of scienceFrom: The Quantum and the Lotus
concerning the universe’s evolution—except, of course, for the notion
of a “beginning”—but it disagrees about the origin of consciousness.
According to Buddhism, consciousness, just like all phenomena we
perceive, has no intrinsic reality. Consciousness as we experience it in
everyday life belongs to the realm of relative truth. It is just a helpful concept.
That said, Buddhism believes in a difference between a “conscious
unreality” (the mind defined as a stream of conscious instants) and
“unconscious unreality” (the material world that it perceives). We do not
believe, as so many biologists argue, that consciousness, or the mind,
arises out of the matter of the brain.
Buddhism distinguishes three levels of consciousness: gross, subtle,
and extremely subtle. The first of these is the level of the biochemical
workings of the brain. The second is the subjective experience that we
customarily call consciousness, that is to say the mind’s faculty to, among other things, examine itself, to ponder its own nature and exercise freedom of choice. The third level, that of the extremely subtle, which is the most important, is also called “the fundamental luminosity of themind.” This is a state of pure awareness that transcends the perception of a subject/object duality in the world and breaks free from the constraints and traps of discursive thought.
These three types are not separate streams of consciousness, but lie at
different, increasingly deep levels. The gross and subtle levels both arise from the fundamental level, as opposed to the other way around, as might be expected. The brain, and in fact the whole body, even extending outside the body to the environment, provide gross and subtle consciousness with the conditions that allow them to manifest themselves. These levels of consciousness are both shaped and modified by the brain and environment,
and can in turn modify the brain and body. The activities of these
levels of consciousness are correlated to the brain, and they can’t manifest themselves without a body.
Fundamental consciousness is quite different. In the tantras—Buddhism’s profoundest vision—fundamental consciousness is called “pure awareness” (rigpa). This type of consciousness is not dependent upon the workings of the brain. It is free of confusion and transcends discursive thought, both positive and negative, as well as the error of mind that is called samsara and the elimination of error that is called nirvana. It’s also called “the primordial continuity of the mind,” “natural luminosity,” “the ultimate nature of the mind,” “essence of Buddhahood,” “the natural state of consciousness,” “unique essential simplicity,” “primordial purity,” “spontaneous presence,” and “absolute space.”
This pure awareness can make itself manifest without the need of the
trappings of the brain. We say that this primordial consciousness has a
natural “creativity” (tsel) in the form of various thoughts that constitute
the “play (rolpa) of pure awareness.” If one recognizes that thoughts thus arise out of pure awareness, one’s understanding of awareness is
enhanced rather than obscured by these thoughts. In that case, we say
that thoughts become “ornaments” (guien) to pure awareness. In normal life, only the gross and subtle levels of consciousness can be discerned, because the fundamental level has been cloaked by the veil of ignorance, just as the sun can be momentarily covered by clouds. However, ignorance can no more affect the primordial nature of consciousness than clouds can affect the sun."
4
Comments
There are, of course areas, of departure, and I'm sure that Maitheu is well-aware of those, too.
Not all Buddists recognize 3 turnings of the wheel of dharma. Not all Buddhists recognize Vajrayana. Some Buddhists are so far from accepted norms that it's nearly impossible to call them Buddhists except to humor them.
"According to Buddhism, consciousness, just like all phenomena we perceive, has no intrinsic reality. Consciousness as we experience it in everyday life belongs to the realm of relative truth. It is just a helpful concept."
Generalizations like "Buddhism teaches the 4nt", sure, but not when we are talking about consciousness and self and reality.
It's a part of teachings that are often referred to as "The Two Truths".
Granted this resource im reading says that the doctrine is based off a pali sutta, but from what i see of the sutta it is saying that the buddha is saying exist and non exist do not apply. Might be beyond my scope of understanding but im not seeing this two truths doctrine changing my stance on what theravadans would say is the case.
Two truths is just a doctrine and it is not necessarily the final word on the nature of reality and the mind. For example it is odd to think that in meditation I am in emptiness and then I return to relative truth when I stand up. Or I am free of suffering but I have to keep regards with relative truth so I can't cause bad karma.
Like you say @Jayantha, it is a mahayana teaching. (though of course you found that reference).
It remains, however, that it is taught - I've seen references to it in Thereavedin literature. Whether or not you choose to accept or reject it is entirely your affair.
Theraveda, like Mahayana, isn't as homogenous as we'd like it to be. Theravedins are known to take Bodhisattva vows - that makes them Mahayanists as those vows mark the beginning of the Mahayana in practice. I've seen Zen monks attending Vajrayana empowerments. I know members of Mahayana sanghas that never get past the First Turning teachings.
When we generalize we often are trying to solidify something into a conceptual framework that makes it more palettable. In the case of Maittheus statement, he's in a position where he has to think about his intended audience. Most people don't give a rip about the differences between Theraveda and everything else in Buddhism. Maittheu's editors would have a siezure if he started outlining those differences. Better, for the sake of the audience, to make generalization in order to remain concise.
If you don't like that, fine, but maybe you should try writing something about Buddhism for a mass audience before you go further.